• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Death Penalty: For or Against

Death Penalty: For or Against

  • For

    Votes: 40 57.1%
  • Against

    Votes: 30 42.9%

  • Total voters
    70
Sounds good to me. Let's write the bill. Murder shall from here out not be considered a crime.
 
No, now wait. We need them alive. Because you're going to make prostitution legal. Therefore we have an ever lower rate of crime.
 
Well... okay, but just until the stupid politicians finish with their fillibusters.
 
myshkin said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Not to put too fine a point on it, I recall reading somewhere that the efficiency and effectiveness of the law enforcement and judicial systems in the US is the reason that the prison population is what it is.

Of course, if there were more law abiding folks, there would be fewer in the pokey, wouldn't there?

"I don't like that law.", does not justify disobeying it.
Does this mean that we exceed even China and Iran?
Somehow I believe you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that neither China nor Iran can be relied upon to furnish accurate figures with respect to anything relating to their internal affairs.

My guess is that in both countries, justice is swift, sure, and exceptionally severe. Neither country would spend money keeping career criminals alive.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Also, you must realize, countries with fewer laws inevitably have fewer crimes. If we made murder legal, our crime rate would plumit.

True, most of those incarcerated are in prison for offenses that were not criminal at the beginning of the 20th century.
 
Fantasea said:
Somehow I believe you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that neither China nor Iran can be relied upon to furnish accurate figures with respect to anything relating to their internal affairs.

My guess is that in both countries, justice is swift, sure, and exceptionally severe. Neither country would spend money keeping career criminals alive.

Yes, the US has an advanced bureaucracy and is administratively superior.

From the conversations that I have had on this topic over the years I judge that if not for a few 'bleeding heart liberals' and 'activist judges' the American Public would welcome the judicial efficiencies of China and Iran.
 
myshkin said:
True, most of those incarcerated are in prison for offenses that were not criminal at the beginning of the 20th century.
A result, no doubt, of the brilliant efforts of the social engineers who sought to purify the populace by separating those it could not educate from those it could.
 
Fantasea said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, I recall reading somewhere that the efficiency and effectiveness of the law enforcement and judicial systems in the US is the reason that the prison population is what it is.

Of course, if there were more law abiding folks, there would be fewer in the pokey, wouldn't there?

"I don't like that law.", does not justify disobeying it.

"Land of the Free" efficiencies seem to be reaching new heights:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1088308.cms
 
I say that we get pretty strict. Singapore rules!
 
myshkin said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Not to put too fine a point on it, I recall reading somewhere that the efficiency and effectiveness of the law enforcement and judicial systems in the US is the reason that the prison population is what it is.

Of course, if there were more law abiding folks, there would be fewer in the pokey, wouldn't there?

"I don't like that law.", does not justify disobeying it.



"Land of the Free" efficiencies seem to be reaching new heights:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...how/1088308.cms
I wonder whether this could be a result of union activity? One of the last bastions of union representation is among the folks involved in the justice system; the police, the court officers, the prison personnel, the parole officers, etc. One positive aspect of all the US criminality is the enhancement of the vocational stability of all involved. No?
.
.
:2funny:
 
satinloveslibs said:
I say that we get pretty strict. Singapore rules!

Now this is interesting:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=strict
Main Entry: strict
Pronunciation: 'strikt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English stricte, from Latin strictus, from past participle of stringere to bind tight -- more at STRAIN
1 archaic a : TIGHT, CLOSE; also : INTIMATE b : NARROW
2 a : stringent in requirement or control <under strict orders> b : severe in discipline <a strict teacher>
3 a : inflexibly maintained or adhered to <strict secrecy> b : rigorously conforming to principle or a norm or condition
4 : EXACT, PRECISE <in the strict sense of the word>
5 : of narrow erect habit of growth <a strict inflorescence>
synonym see RIGID
- strict•ly /'strik(t)-lE/ adverb
- strict•ness /-n&s/ noun

and

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free
Main Entry: 1free
Pronunciation: 'frE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fre•er; fre•est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English frEo; akin to Old High German frI free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear
1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens> c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another

Is it just me or are these words opposites?

It seems to be easier to just profess freedom while practicing STRICTNESS or repression or whatever you choose to call it.

It seems that the people with the most freedom are the ones most subordinate to the wishes of their masters.

If you like Singapore you'll love the People's Republic of Amerika
 
Fantasea said:
I wonder whether this could be a result of union activity? One of the last bastions of union representation is among the folks involved in the justice system; the police, the court officers, the prison personnel, the parole officers, etc. One positive aspect of all the US criminality is the enhancement of the vocational stability of all involved. No?
.
.
:2funny:

You got it. This is our answer to unemployment. Lock half up and have the other half watch them.
I think we were better off with the factories.
 
myshkin said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I wonder whether this could be a result of union activity? One of the last bastions of union representation is among the folks involved in the justice system; the police, the court officers, the prison personnel, the parole officers, etc. One positive aspect of all the US criminality is the enhancement of the vocational stability of all involved. No?
You got it. This is our answer to unemployment. Lock half up and have the other half watch them.
I think we were better off with the factories.
Given the fact that the majority of inmates are undereducated, at best, and more likely to be illiterate, we'd be even better off if the public school system got back to its roots and ensured that all kids became proficient in reading in the very early grades.

The fact that they can't read by the third grade dooms them to failure because from there on, everything depends on text books which have to be read and examinations which require both reading and writing skills.

If anyone is interested in why the drop out rates are what they are, the answer lies in the preceding sentence.
 
Fantasea said:
Given the fact that the majority of inmates are undereducated, at best, and more likely to be illiterate, we'd be even better off if the public school system got back to its roots and ensured that all kids became proficient in reading in the very early grades.

The fact that they can't read by the third grade dooms them to failure because from there on, everything depends on text books which have to be read and examinations which require both reading and writing skills.

If anyone is interested in why the drop out rates are what they are, the answer lies in the preceding sentence.

Go for it!
 
Back
Top Bottom